Introduction
The book of Genesis is foundational to the Pentateuch,
the Tanakh, the entire Bible. It provides the “literary and theological
underpinning of the whole canonical Scriptures.”[1]
Kenneth Matthews argues that there is “no salvation story without the sacred
events of Moses’ first book” and furthermore “no Christian world and worldview
without its ‘Genesis.’”[2]
The title Genesis comes from the Latin and Greek “Genesis” which means
“origin.”[3]
In the Hebrew the title comes from the text’s first word בְּרֵאשִׁית (re'shiyth) a noun meaning
“beginning.” This custom of naming books according to the first word or phrase
continues throughout the Pentateuch.[4]
Hebrew manuscripts from the medieval period use the subtitles “First Book,” “Book of the Creation of the World,” and “Book of the Righteous.”[5]
Matthews notes that the Torah was originally viewed as one unified work and was
called the “Book of Moses” or the “Book of the Law” in exilic and post exilic
times.[6]
Sailhammer argues strongly that Genesis should be read, understood, and
interpreted not in isolation, but in connection to the other parts of the
Pentateuch. He states, “In reality, the first part of the Pentateuch is just
that – the first part of the Pentateuch. It is not an independent book as
such.”[7]
Genesis is concerned with origins;
of the heavens and the earth, of man, of family, of civilization,[8]
and of God’s interaction and relationship with His creation. As such, Ross
remarks, “The book forms a prologue to the law.”[9]
Matthews adds, “Genesis is read as an interpretation of the past with an eye on
Israel’s future.”[10]
He continues, “[the] Genesis narratives have precursory images parallel to
Israel.”[11]
Sailhammer observes that chapters 1-11 form an introduction to the rest of the
book and to the Pentateuch in total.[12]
Other prominent themes and motifs include: blessings and curses, the
sovereignty of God, and God’s actions in redemption.[13]
The genre of Genesis is primarily
historical narrative. Ross explains, “What it reports happened, but how it
explains it is theological interpretation. Accordingly, myth must be ruled out
as a possible genre for the narratives.” Matthews stresses the importance of
obtaining theological knowledge from Genesis “in its own terms, not in the
philosophical categories of systematics.”[14]
Sailhammer states that the hermeneutical strategy is to understand the didactic
relationship between the past and the future.[15]
Similarly, Matthews notes that Paul uses “patriarchal characters and their
stories as historical prototypes”[16]
Hamilton sees the people in chapters 1-11 as “sorry examples” and the
patriarchs in 12-50 as “solutions to this problem.”[17]
Scholars overwhelmingly see the תוֹלְד֧וֹת (toledot) as the key to the structure
of Genesis. It can be translated “the generations,” (KJV) “the account,” (NASB)
or “the history” (NKJV). The toledoth structure divides the book into ten to
twelve units or sections.[18]
There is some debate as to whether the toledot summarizes the previous section
or introduces a new one.[19]
Hamilton argues that these are a type of colophon; an inscription usually at
the end of a document containing the author or owners name.[20]
Matthews adds that the toledot serves as a “hinge” or “linking device” in
Genesis.[21] The
presence of the colophon and toledot is found in other ancient Near East
documents.[22] What’s
quite interesting is that this shows the high probability that Moses was
working mostly with written records, rather than oral tradition, while
composing Genesis.[23]
Until the late eighteenth century, most
scholars, including those from Judaism and Christianity, subscribed to the Mosaic
authorship of Genesis.[24]
Ross notes that Mosaic authorship finds support “in ancient tradition (biblical
and extra biblical), the ancient synagogue, the New Testament, the church
fathers, and most commentators up to the time of modern criticism.”[25]
The Pentateuch, the “book of Moses,” and the “Law of Moses” are synonymous in
Scripture. (2 Kings 14, 2 Chron. 35, Ezra 6-7) Additional Scriptural support
comes from Luke 24:27, “And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he
expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself,” Luke
24:44, “all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses,
and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me,” John 1:7 “For the law
was given by Moses,” and other places. Sailhammer concurs, “It seems apparent
that Jesus and the writers of the NT believed Moses was the author of much, if
not all, of the Pentateuch.”[26]
In the late eighteenth century,
criticism of Mosaic authorship began to appear. The “documentary hypothesis”
cited the different names used for God, phraseology, literary style, and the
recording of Moses’ death in Deuteronomy as evidence against Mosaic authorship.[27]
This view has dominated scholarship over the last two centuries. However,
recent archeological evidence and important works by Umberto Cassuto, K.A. Kitchen,
and others have caused some erosion of confidence in the documentary
hypothesis.[28] The
documentary hypothesis has no parallel anywhere in the ancient Near East.[29]
Of multiple names for God, Ross points out “the criterion of the divine names
was called into question when texts from the ancient Near East displayed a
variety of names for deities engraved on the same monument.”[30]
Similarly he argues that the “criterion of doublets was also challenged on the
basis of Semitic literary style. Subsequent studies demonstrated that
repetition and parallelism were common.”[31]
Furthermore, I fail to see how additions and clarifications to the text negate
the Pentateuch as being a work of Moses.
Genesis
3:20-24
20 And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.
21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the Lord God make coats of skins, and clothed them.
22 And the Lord
God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and
evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of
life, and eat, and live for ever:
23 Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.
24 So
he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden
Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way
of the tree of life.
Our text is preceded by the curses pronounced by God in
3:14-19. Sorrow and toil, thistles and death permeate the once perfect
existence in paradise. Our pericope opens with a brief interlude of hope. In
contrast to the death and dust found in the previous verse, Adam names his
woman a second time and calls her חַוֳּה (hawwah) which means “life” or
“living.” Her name sounds
similar to the word חָי
(hay) found at the end of the verse which has a similar meaning of “living” or
“alive.” Matthews explains, “By phonetic play, Adam explains why she is called
Eve,” for she is the mother of all living.[32]
Sailhammer comments, “This is the second time Adam names his wife. Her first
name pointed to her origin (“out of man”) whereas her second name points to her
destiny (“the mother of all living.”)”[33]
Perhaps Paul has this word play in mind when he wrote 1 Corinthians 11, “For as
the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things
of God.” Yet more word play is afoot, as Matthews notes, “Though Eve is “the
mother of all living (hay),” they lost their opportunity to possess divinity’s
“eternal life (hay).”[34]
An interesting, but improbable, contrasting viewpoint is mentioned by Wenham:
Hawwah is very like the
Aramaic word (hiwya) “serpent,” so some early Jewish commentators and some
twentieth-century writers have suggested that this is what the man meant. He
was rebuking his wife for deceiving him by calling her “serpent.” The following
remark, “because she was the mother of all living,” is then seen as a punning
reinterpretation of the name by the narrator. However, though it is likely that
the comment comes from the narrator, for Adam would not have used the past
tense “she was the mother,” the etymology associating Eve with serpent is
improbable.[35]
Wenham further argues that
since the LXX translates Eve as “zoe” (life in the Greek), “life” is to be preferred
over “serpent.”[36]
Finally, as the “image of God” status of man is retained after the fall
(Genesis 9), so too, man’s “responsible headship” remains after the fall, as
evidenced by Adam “exercising the same prerogative” of naming after the fall.[37]
The second ray of hope seen in this brief intermission is
the clothing that God provides for His people.[38]
Significant and rich theological understanding can be found in this single
sentence. In contrast with the seventh day when God rested from all that He made
(וַיַּעַשׂ), God made (וַיַּעַשׂ) these garments and clothed Adam and
his wife.[39]
Sailhammer comments, “After – and because of – the fall, there is still work to
be done.”[40] This helped
me understand John 5 better, “But Jesus answered them, “My Father has been
working until now, and I have been working.” God replaces Adam and Eve’s own
fig leaf coverings with “tunics of skin.” (NKJV) Hamilton notes two theological
themes from this action, “salvation comes from without” and notes that the
clothing “precedes expulsion,” showing that “God’s grace comes before his
judgment.”[41] The כָּתְנֹות (tunic or garment) is more than “a
simple covering.”[42]
Instead, it is a long garment reaching down to the knees or ankles and is the
same kind of garment worn by the priests in Israel.[43]
This can show that though they are to “return to the dust,” they still have a
place and function in God’s kingdom and plan. Retrospectively, Sailhammer
explains, “The role of the priests as developed in the Pentateuch is thus
foreshadowed in God’s past work – his work of restoring to man the blessing of
his presence and fellowship.”[44]
These tunics are tunics of animal skin (עֹור). Though some commentators are
hesitant to infer animal sacrifice here, it is at least a “fair implication”
and would “makes sense in Mosaic community.”[45]
With the tunics being later connected with the priestly office and being made
of animal skins, rather than leaves or plant fibers, it seems more than a “fair
implication” to infer animal sacrifice here.
The brief interlude of hope is concluded;
verses twenty-two and following pick up with the consequences of disobedience. Here
the text shows “divine deliberation” and an “internal dialogue.”[46]
Hamilton points out that the presence of גַּם (also) indicates that they have not
yet eaten of the tree of life.[47]
The particle הֵן
(look, behold) should be seen as introducing the reason for the expulsion from
the garden.[48] Since הָאָדָם (the man or Adam) contains the
definite article, it’s best to understand Adam himself being the referent,
rather than man generically.[49]
Word play is again seen in the text. The serpent earlier said that Adam and Eve
would “be like God, knowing good and evil.” In verse twenty-two God says, “The
man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil.” Hamilton points out that
part of what the serpent said was true “in one sense, but only one sense.”[50]
These words convey one thing with the serpent and quite another with God.[51]
Hamilton comments, “the couple not only fails to gain something they do not
presently have; the irony is that they lose what they currently possess:
unsullied fellowship with God.”[52]
Sailhammer concurs, “In the subtle verbal interchanges of this passage, the
author shows that humankind’s happiness (tob, “good”) does not rest in being
“like God” so much as being “with God,” that is , enjoying the blessings of
God’s presence.”[53]
The
pericope ends with God expelling Adam and Eve from the garden paradise and
placing Cherubim to guard the entrance. The expulsion is quite strong. Not only
is the expulsion narrated twice (verse 23 and 24), but two different strong
words are used to describe the event. In verse 23, God וַיְשַׁלְּחֵהוְּ (sends them away). In verse 24 God וַיְגָרֶשׁ (drives them out). Hamilton points
out, “The intensity of the situation is highlighted in the prose text by the
use of repetition and synonymous parallelism (salah/garas), devices one
normally associates with poetry.”[54]
These words connote divorce and dispossession.[55]
וַיְשַׁלְּחֵהוְּ is used of the “sending away” of
Ishmael and וַיְגָרֶשׁ
is used of Cain’s exile and the expulsion of the Canaanites from the land.[56]
After their expulsion, God places הַכְּרֻבִים (Cherubim) to לִשְׁמֹר (keep or guard) the way to the tree of
life. Sadly, Adam who was tasked with keeping and guarding (לִשְׁמֹר) the garden is now kept or guarded (לִשְׁמֹר) from it! Cherubim are “winged,
composite beings associated with the presence of God.”[57]
Hamilton points out that “only here in Old Testament do the Cherubim engage in
police activity.”[58]
Apparently, God placing the Cherubim at the east of the garden implies that
this was the entrance to the garden. The motif of the “east” (מִקֶּדֶם) is later used of the expulsion of
Cain, the location of the Tower of Babel, Babylon, and Sodom and Gomorrah.[59]
Commentators see many tabernacle and temple sanctuary correlations in this last
verse. As the entrance to the garden is through the east side, the entrance to
the tabernacle and temple is through the east gate.[60]
Hamilton explains, “The Cherubim function much like the later Levites who are
posted as guards around the tabernacle, and who are to strike down any person
who encroaches upon the forbidden sancta.”[61]
Images of the Cherubim were used with the Ark of the Covenant and also
decorated the curtains. The word וַיַּשְׁכֵּן used for God placing the Cherubim is
later used of God וַיַּשְׁכֵּן (camping) in the tabernacle with His people.[62]
Wenham summarizes, “These features all combine to suggest that the garden of
Eden was a type of archetypal sanctuary, where God was uniquely present in all
his life-giving power. It was this that man forfeited when he ate the fruit.”[63]
Reflection/Conclusion
God is severe. He is severe both in His
judgments and in His mercy. His actions do not fit well into Aristotle’s
ethical formulation of the “golden mean,” described as “the desirable middle
between two extremes.”[1]
God gives life to man, a wife of his own flesh, a paradise, dominion, and
endows/creates man in His own image. God curses man for his disobedience and
rebellion, punishes him with toil and death, and thrusts him out of the garden
paradise. He also clothes them, gives them children, promises to redeem them,
and makes them a part of His redemptive history. It seems that God’s nature and
character is to be complete, thorough, rigorous, even if this creates tension
or a paradox. His nature does not seem to fit well with philosophical
abstraction. He is active, interactive; He “gets His hands dirty,” as seen most
prominently in the crucifixion of His Son. This is the reason I have some trouble with the doctrine of impassibility,
“(from Latin in-, "not", passibilis, "able to suffer, experience
emotion.")[2] Even if
it’s technically true at some point, it’s seems to not be the best way to think
of God, it doesn’t seem to be the dominant way God communicates His nature to
us generally in Scripture.
Studying the Hebrew text confirmed the value
of learning the original language. The careful repetition of words, word play,
poetic structures are often difficult to translate. You can also miss
connections with words and their later use, such as with the expulsion from the
garden and the expulsion of the Canaanites. I would like to see a translation
that has more uniformity in translating the underlying Hebrew word with the
same English word as much as possible. In order to think God’s thoughts after
Him, it seems helpful to make the same connections He does between words and
concepts.
[1] Kenneth Matthews, The New American Commentary Volume 1 - Genesis 1-11 (Nashville: B
& H Pub. Group, 1996), 22.
[2] Matthews, NAC Vol. 1, 22.
[3] Victor Hamilton, The Book of Genesis (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co.,
1995), 1.
[4] Hamilton, Genesis, 1.
[5] Hamilton, Genesis, 1.
[6] Matthews, NAC Vol. 1, 22.
[7] John Sailhammer, The Expositor's Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan,
2008), 24.
[8] Hamilton, Genesis, 2.
[9] Allen Ross, Creation and Blessing: a guide to the study and exposition of the book
of Genesis (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1988), 64.
[10] Matthews, NAC Vol. 1, 51
[11] Matthews, NAC Vol. 1, 51.
[12] Sailhammer, The Expositor's Bible Commentary, 49.
[13] Ross, Creation and Blessing, 65, 102-103.
[14] Matthews, NAC Vol. 1, 24.
[15] Sailhammer, The Expositor's Bible Commentary, 36.
[16] Matthews, NAC Vol. 1, 64.
[17] Hamilton, Genesis, 11.
[18] Matthews, NAC Vol. 1, 27.
[19] Hamilton, Genesis, 8.
[20] Hamilton, Genesis, 5.
[21] Matthews, NAC Vol. 1, 33.
[22] Hamilton, Genesis, 6. Matthews, NAC
Vol. 1, 32.
[23] Sailhammer, The Expositor's Bible Commentary, 25.
[24] Hamilton, Genesis, 11.
[25] Ross, Creation and Blessing, 24.
[26] Sailhammer, The Expositor's Bible Commentary, 26.
[27] Hamilton, Genesis, 13.
[28] Matthews, NAC Vol. 1, 63. Hamilton, Genesis,
36-37.
[29] Hamilton, Genesis, 36.
[30] Ross, Creation and Blessing, 26.
[31] Ross, Creation and Blessing, 26.
[32] Matthews, NAC Vol. 1, 254.
[33] Sailhammer, The Expositor's Bible Commentary, 93.
[34] Matthews, NAC Vol. 1, 256.
[35] Gordon Wenham, Genesis (Waco, Tex.: Word Books, 1987), 84.
[36] Wenham, Genesis, 84.
[37] Matthews, NAC Vol. 1, 254.
[38] Matthews, NAC Vol. 1, 254.
[39] Matthews, NAC Vol. 1, 255.
[40] Sailhammer, The Expositor's Bible Commentary, 94.
[41] Hamilton, Genesis, 207.
[42] Hamilton, Genesis, 207.
[43] Matthews, NAC Vol. 1, 255. Wenham, Genesis,
84.
[44] Sailhammer, The Expositor's Bible Commentary, 95.
[45] Matthews, NAC Vol. 1, 255.
[46] Hamilton, Genesis, 208.
[47] Hamilton, Genesis, 209.
[48] Matthews, NAC Vol. 1, 256.
[49] Matthews, NAC Vol. 1, 256.
[50] Hamilton, Genesis, 208.
[51] Hamilton, Genesis, 208.
[52] Hamilton, Genesis, 208.
[53] Sailhammer, The Expositor's Bible Commentary, 94.
[54] Hamilton, Genesis, 210.
[55] Matthews, NAC Vol. 1, 256.
[56] Matthews, NAC Vol. 1, 256. Wenham, Genesis,
85.
[57] Matthews, NAC Vol. 1, 256.
[58] Hamilton, Genesis, 210.
[59] Matthews, NAC Vol. 1, 256. Sailhammer, The
Expositor's Bible Commentary, 95.
[60] Hamilton, Genesis, 210.
[61] Hamilton, Genesis, 210.
[62] Wenham, Genesis, 86.
[63] Wenham, Genesis, 86.
No comments:
Post a Comment